Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1977/08/24 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA August 24, 1977 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Smith, R. Johnson and Renneisen. Absent with previous notification: Commissioners G. Johnson and Pressutti. The newly appointed Commissioner for the seat vacated by former Commissioner Starr has not yet been seated. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt, Deputy City Attorney Harron, and Secretary Mapes. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Chandler, followed by a moment of silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (R. Johnson-Renneisen) The minutes of the meeting of August 10, 1977 be approved as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Chandler called for oral communication and none were presented. 1. Consideration of boundaries for Holleron/Acacia Avenue Annexation Director of Planning Peterson noted the location of the single lot on Acacia Avenue developed with a single family home for which a petition for annexation has been filed. While the City normally has concern over the annexation of a single lot which would require police patrol down a County street to serve the lot, in this location the development of the last phase of the Bonita Ridge Estates subdivision will extend down to Acacia Avenue, thus requiring police service to the area. The lot under consideration is a logical extension of the city boundary and approval of the annexation is recommended. In response to a question from Commission Smith, Mr. Peterson affirmed that annexation of this lot was a condition in the agreement between the City and the property owner for connection to the city sewer system which was approved by the City Council in July. MSUC (Renneisen-R. Johnson) The Commission approves the boundaries of the Holleron/Acacia Avenue Annexation and authorizes the staff to file the petition with LAFCO. 2. Consideration of resolution approving conditional use permit PCC-78-1 for dwellin~ group at 674 Second Avenue in R-1 zone. Director of Planning Peterson noted that at the meeting two weeks ago the Commission voiced approval of an application for a conditional use permit for a dwelling group at 674 Second Avenue and asked the staff to present recommended conditions for approval at this meeting. A -2- ~ August 24, 1977 Mr. Peterson reported that a fundamental condition is for an irrevocable offer of dedication for street right of way purposes of the northerly and westerly 26 feet of the property. He also recommended that condition 5, relating to the waiving of the right to protest the formation of an improvement act district, be modified by deleting the words "under the Majority Protest and Debt Limitation Act of 1931." Mr. Peterson further recommended that condition lO, which requires approval of the architecture of the proposed dwelling by the Zoning AdministratOr, be amended by adding the words, "and fencing," after the word "architecture." This is advisable to insure that fen~ing not be placed within the area to be offered for dedication. Commissioner Smith moved that the conditional use permit for the dwelling group be approved with conditions as follows: 1. As written in the staff report 2. As written in the staff report. 3. As written in the staff report. 4. To be deleted except for a statement that no permanent buildings shall be constructed on the northerly 26 feet or the westerly 26 ft. of the property. 5. To be deleted. 6. Be modified to read, "All utility lines for service to the new building shall be underground. 7. To be deleted. 8. To be deleted. 9. To be deleted. 10. To be modified to add "fencing" as requested by the Director of Planning. The motion was seconded by Commission Renneisen, who asked Commissioner Smith to comment on the reasons for the deletion and modification of conditions as suggested in his motion. Commissioner Smith advised that he felt condition 4 should be deleted because he does not believe the property owner should be obligated to provide right of way for the street at his expense. A 1911 Act could include the purchase of the necessary property for right of way. He also contended that the applicant should not be required to give up his right to protest the installation of public improvements in the future. Mr. Smith pointed out that as written condition 6 requires that all utilities shall be undergrounded and this could be construed to include the utility lines along Second Avenue. He recommended deletion of conditions 7, 8 and 9 since they all pertain to the installaiton of the new street in the future. Condition No. 10 is acceptable. The motion failed to pass by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners Smith md Renneisen NOES: Commissioners Chandler and R. Johnson ABSENT: Commissioners Pressutti and G. Johnson Commissioner Renneisen suggested that rather than delay adoption of the resolution to a future meeting when all Commissioners would be present, that further consideration should be given to applying conditions that would meet the approval of the Commission. Director of Planning Peterson advised with reference to condition 6, that it was the intent of the staff to require the undergrounding of service lines to the new building only and he concurred with the amended condition as suggested by Commissioner Smith. -3- ~ August 24, 1977 At Commissioner Renneisen's request, Mr. Peterson discussed other deletions and modifications recommended by Commissioner Smith. He pointed out that the major - deletion dealt with condition 4 which requires the offer of dedication of land for street right of way. He felt that unless such dedication is required,the City is committed to permitting the development of other lots along Second Avenue to be served by a driveway easement to the rear portion of the property. In the past such development has been approved where there was no opportunity to construct a new street, but in this case the depth of the lots affords an opportunity for a public street. The proposed street would be in alignment with Twin Oaks Avenue which has been constructed both to the north of "I" Street and south of "J" Street. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen that conditional use permit PCC-75-1 for a dwelling group at 674 Second Avenue be approved subject to the conditions as enumerated in the staff report with the following modifications: Condition 5 be amended by striking the words "under the Majority Protest and Debt Limitation Act of 1931"; condition 6 be amended to read, "All utilities to the new buildings shall be undergrounded"; condition 10 be amended to read, "The architecture and fencing for the proposed dwelling shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator." The motion was seconded by Chairman Chandler, and carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-78-3 - Operation of service station and retail sales at 898 Third Avenue - Atlantic Richfield Company Director of Planning Peterson advised that after receiving a copy of the staff report, an attorney for the applicant, upon being apprised that there would be only four Commissioners present at this meeting, requested that consideration of their application be continued. It is recommended that the continuance be to the meeting of September 28. Commissioner Chandler opened the public hearing and requested a motion for continuance. MSUC (Renneisen-R. Johnson) The public hearing for consideration of conditional use permit application PCC-78-3 be continued to the meeting of September 28, 1977. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of EIR-74-3 Supplement on Canyon Plaza Shoppin9 Center Environmental Review Coordinator Reid advised that the new development proposal was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and it was determined that an update of the Environmental Impact Report adopted in 1974 was necessary. One of the key issues is the traffic porblem surrounding the property. This project would result in a substantial increase in traffic volume, however, the mitigation measures proposed as part of this project and other projects currently and soon to be under way would mitigate the direct traffic impact to an insignificant level. However, based on the long term cumulative basis, this project and others served by Telegraph Canyon Road would result in a considerable impact, primarily on the 1-805/Telegraph Canyon Road interchange. There is likely to be considerable delays in getting through that intersection. Increased traffic will also contribute to increased noise levels and increased CO concentrations in the area but is unlikely to violate any of the ambient air quality standards. -4- ~ August 24, 1977 The report points out that this project will not contribute significantly to the problem of runoff in the Telegraph Canyon channel, but on a long term basis develop- ment in the Telegraph Canyon basin will result in increase runoff which the down- stream facilities are inadequate to handle. It is noted that with the landscaping and screening walls as proposed this development will not have an adverse effect on the scenic quality of Telegraph Canyon Road, designated as a Scenic Route in the Chula Vista General Plan. Mr. Reid reported that subsequent to the issuance of the draft EIR Supplement, information has been received from Cal Trans concerning the signalization of the Halecrest/I-805 interchange, which provided an opportunity for a more detailed study of that problem. Amendments to the draft EIR relating to that study have been issued. In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Reid advised that Cal Trans has not indicated an intent to rebuild the northbound offramp from the freeway to bring it intoalig~ment with Halecrest Drive. Chairman Chandler opened the public hearing in consideration of EIR-74-3 Supplement. Joy Short, 839 Halecrest Drive, commented on the fact that the proposed development is in two phases with rough grading of the entire area to take place in the first phase. Landscaping of all slopes is required ~ring phase I but the level area for the second phase of development will be left in loose dirt. She pointed out that this soil contains fungus spores which the wind carries and infects human beings with Valley Fever. She felt that some provision should be made for some type of planting to eliminate this dust problem. Marilyn Lassman, 190 Pepper Tree Road, asked for some discussion with regard to noise problems emanating from the air conditioners~qthe roofs which may affect the residents of Douglas Street. Mr. Reid advised that this problem ha~ been considered and prior to the issuance of building permits for the construction, specifications and standards will be reviewed by the Director of Building and Housing to make certain the equipment conforms to the performance standards adopted by the City. Enich Lechner, 522 Douglas Street, asked if there are regulations with regard to the height of signs. Director of Planning Peterson affirmed that the city has such regulations and this will be discussed during consideration of the precise plan for the project. This is not an environmental issue. Mr. Lechner also requested that some provision be made for pedestrian traffic to and from and within the shopping center. Bob Vermilya, 588 Douglas, inquired what percent of traffic increase is likely to impact Douglas Street. Mr. Reid advised that the traffic study concluded that about 5% of the traffic increase would utilize Douglas Street. The total increase is predicted to be 12,000 cars a day, 5% of that would be 600 more cars per day on Douglas Street. Doug Paul, Project Design Consultants, 1400 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, advised that their firm was the author of the draft EIR for this development. With -5- -- August 24, 1977 regard to the increase in traffic, he contended that the potential shoppers of this center would be people who would be on the road anyway with a destination to some shopping center. He asserted that Douglas Street would be used mainly by people in the residential area to the north of the shopping center. Guy Holton, 592 Douglas Street, took exception to the statement that the traffic that would be on Douglas would be there anjavay because the people would be looking for a shopping center. He commented on the already heavily congested conditions on Telegraph Canyon Road, which he contended would trap shoppers in the center with no way to get on to Telegraph Canyon Road. Ann Holton, 592 Douglas, pointed out that the first E.I.R. assumed a shopping center of 144,610 square feet and predicted the increase traffic on Telegraph Canyon was 12,600. The project has now grown to 249,860 sq.ft., but the traffic increase uses the same figure. Mr. Reid pointed out that since no plan had been prepared when the original E.I.R. was written, the traffic generation was based on different assumptions than the floor area, buildings, and number of parking spaces. The traffic increase is now based on more specific information. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Peterson advised that it is his opinion, concurred to by the Environmental Review Coordinator, the testimony offered during the public hearing does not require additional investigation by the staff, so it would be appropriate to certify the E.I.R. with the inclusion of that testimony. MSUC (Renneisen-R. Johnson) The Commission certifies that the Supplement to EIR-74-3 has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, 1970 with the inclusion of the testimony presented during public hearing and the amendments contained in the staff report, and further that the Commission has reviewed the information contained in EIR-74-3. 5, PUBLIC HEARING: Precise Plan PCM-78-4 for Canyon Plaza Shopping Center at Telegraph Canyon Road and Halecrest in C-C-P zone - Telegraph Canyon Group Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the setting of this project on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road extending back to the rear of the residential lots on Douglas Street. While the total site contains approximately 18 acres, one-third of that area is taken up by the drainage channel at the front and the 2:1 slope bank at the north side of the property. The first phase of development will include about 87,000 square feet of floor area with the main buildings set back near the toe of the slope and a smaller restaurant building located near Telegraph Canyon Road. The first phase includes approximately 500 parking spaces. The second phase is presented as a skeletal plan depicting the general location of buildings, the required parking, and a traffic circulation plan to provide access from Halecrest, from Telegraph Canyon Road and from Crest Drive at the east end of the site. It was felt that the original proposal contai, ned a circuitous route to Crest Drive and the engineer for the applicant has indicated they may opt for a road system which would be close to and parallel with Telegraph Canyon Road. It is the contention of the staff that the intersection of this access road with Crest Drive should be moved northerly from Telegraph Canyon Road to eliminate the possibility of added traffic congestion at the intersection of Crest Drive and Telegrpah Canyon Road. It was further recommended that the driveway to Crest be aligned with the front of the buildings proposed in phase I. This would necessitate a redesign of the buildings shown on the skeletal plan for phase II. -6- August 24, 1977 Mr. Lee pointed out that the grading will basically be done at one time and the slope banks at the rear will be landscaped at one time to assure uniform growth. No requirement has been made for landscaping the four acres of level area which is left for the phase II development since there would be little danger of soil erosion. If it is deemed advisable the area could be hydroseeded with temporary irrigation provided to establish plant growth. Mr. Lee noted on the applicant's plan the design of the channel to be screened by a slump block wall topped by wrought iron railing parallel to Telegraph Canyon Road, with landscaping at the periphery of the development, also between the wall and Telegraph Canyon Road. The applicant proposes two separate signs, the largest being 30 feet in height and approximately 16 feet in width located at the main entrance drive to identify the center and the two major tenants. A second sign, approximately 23 feet high, would be located at the west end of the project to also identify the center and another major tenant. It can be assumed that a request for a third sign would be submitted with the development of phase II to identify the major tenant for that area. It is the staff's contention that signing at a shoppingcenter utilizing a single freestanding sign to identify the center and the major tenants is adequate. The staff feels that in this case the linear nature of the development, the location of the buildings in close proximity to Telegraph Canyon Road, and the exposure to the street give the stores the necessary visibility without utilizing a series of freestanding signs. The identification placed on the buildings will be adequate with one freestanding si§~. Mr. Lee noted the architecture of the structures which includes tile on mansard roofs and slump block for the basic building material. It is felt that with the physical constraints of the property the developer has done an excellent job in designing an attractive center. Mr. Lee recommended that the Commission find that the mitigating measures incorporated into the project will avoid any direct significant impact from this development and that in terms of long range effects, it is not economically feasible to mitigate those impacts. It is also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of the precise plan subject to the 17 conditions enumerated in the staff report. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Doug Paul, Project Design Consultants, 1400 6th Avenue, San Diego, addressed the conditions of approval and suggested minor changes. He displayed, for the Commission's consideration, a revised site plan which shows the access driveway to Crest at the front of the site paralleling Telegraph Canyon Road. He pointed out that condition 5 stipulates the location of the drive at a precise distance from the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road. He requested that this condition be more generalized to state, "a suitable distance to accommodate free flowing traffic," allowing the applicant's engineer and the staff to work out the specific location. Adoption of condition 5 as stipulated would require that the proposed future building be.redrawn in a different shape to accommodate the driveway. The applicant does not wish to be tied to a specific shape for the buildings in phase II at this time as they feel that should be based upon a tenant's preference. They are hoping to attract a home improvment center to that location. -- -7- ~ August 24, 1977 Mr. Paul noted that condition 6 enumerates specific improvements to be constructed in Telegraph Canyon Road. He suggested that the requirement for "One half of a 14 foot wide raised centermedian including curb and gutter," be amended by adding the words "or equivalent value." This would give the applicant the flexibility of constructing the full center median for a portion of the required distance. Mr. Paul pointed out that condition l0 calls for 5½ feet of monolithic sidewalk from the top of the curb and a 7½ ft. unimproved area between the sidewalk and the right of way line. He pointed out that their cross section calls for the 50 ft. roadway to extend to the backof the future curb; they would then construct a 5 ft. monolithic sidewalk and have an 8 ft. planter area. Mr. Paul called attention to condition 11 which requires that a box conduit or other suitable structure be provided to extend Telegraph Canyon channel to the centerline of Crest Drive. He felt that is not a reasonable request for phase I development and asked that a statement similar to the one contained in condition 8 be added allowing this improvement to be deferred until phase II is built or until the upstream developer is prepared to construct the other half of that crossing. Mr. Paul asked for an estimate of the value of the acquisition costs referred to in condition 12 relating to right of way for Crest Drive. Gilbert Dreyfus, 333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor, Los Angeles, CA., general partner of Telegraph Canyon Group, Ltd. and owner of the site for the past 18 years, discussed the project. He ~dvised that at the time the City, on its own initiative, expanded the commercial zoning to the entire 18 acres, they were not sure how soon they could develop the entire site commercially, but things are moving fast and it appears development would occur much sooner than anticipated based on the interest of a prospective tenant. He pointed out the physical constraints of the area reserved for phase II since the slope bank moves forward leaving less area for a building site. Since the city retains jurisdiction for approval of the devel- opment of phase II he felt the configuration of the building should not be restricted at this time. He recognized the need for a traffic system extending through the project from Halecrest Drive to Crest Drive. He asserted that traffic from this site would not impact Douglas Street, but would enter on to Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Dreyfus expressed concern over the conditions relating to the allocation of the cost of public improvements, specifically, conditions 12 and 14. He felt that some of the improvements required are the burden of property outside of this project site. He noted that condition 14 does not describe the limits of the Assessment District and/or Reimbursement District. Without that information he felt the condition is unfair at this point. He expressed support of the general view that improvement costs should be the shared burden of all developers. Mr. Dreyfus also questioned condition 12 Which calls for reimbursement of acquisition costs of Crest Drive. He pointed out that the right of way for Crest Drive was acquired by the City through condemnation proceedings. He felt that condition presupposes that the City has the right to ask for the reimbursement of those costs, and if the City does, in fact, have that right, he is willing to pay. But, if the City does not have that right, he feels it is not appropriate at this time to make that a condition for approval of the precise plan for development. He asked that condition 12 be amended by adding the phrase, "provided - the city has the legal right to request such reimbursement." Commissioner Smith asked what difference it makes whether street right of way is acquired through condemnation or through dedication. -8- ~ August 24, 1977 Deputy City Attorney Harron advised that if the property is condemend for public use the owner is paid for it, if the street right of way is dedicated the city gets it free. The Commission further discussed the access drive to Crest and its intersection with that street. Traffic Engineer Hanson pointed out the city's concern with eliminating as much as possible the stacking of cars on Crest Drive at the signal on Telegraph Canyon Road. If cars exit from the shopping center too close to the signal it will compound that problem. He concurred with permitting some flexibility in deter- mining the exact location of that access onto Crest Drive. Joy Short, 839 Halecrest Drive, asked the number of points at which left turn movements would be permitted to and from Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr. Lee pointed out that left turn movements would be permitted at the main entrance into the center only, and that the raised center median in Telegraph Canyon Road would prohibit left turns at the other access points. Mrs. Short contended this did not conform to information contained in the E.I.R. which indicated there would be no left turn movements on Telegraph Canyon Road. She asked if lighting would be provided on the access drive through phase II. She also asked what the slope would be at the point of access from Halecrest Drive. Mr. Paul reported that the grading elevations do not indicate there would be any problem of slope at the point of access. With reference to left turns into the center, he pointed out that with no traffic light at the main entrance and three lanes of traffic in each direction, such turns would be difficult and would probably not be utilized by cars leaving the shopping center. It is anticipated the traffic would go to a signalized intersection in order to make a left turn. He advised that they did not anticipate having lighting on the access drive, which he felt would be used mainly by exiting traffic. Mrs. Short protested that an unlighted driveway would be unsafe for youngsters walking along that route at night. Gilbert Dreyfus spoke to a question raised earlier concerning the architecture of the bank and restaurant, affirming that it will be compatible wi th the architecture of the main building. With regard to the limitation of signs, Mr. Dreyfus contended that the linear nature of the site calls for a second freestanding sign to direct the traffic to the most suitable access road for a particular tenant. He felt that the signing which they have requested would be consistent with better traffic control. William Edwards, Political Action Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the development and the changes requested by the developer. He also suggested that theprospective tenants should be consulted at the time the plans are considered. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt responded to some of the changes requested by the developer. With regard to condition 5, he indicated a willingness to leave the exact location of the intersection of the access drive with Crest Drive to the approval of the Public Works Director. -9- -- August 24, 1977 With reference to condition 6, he advised that the requirement for one-half of the 14 foot center median was based on the supposition that the property to the south would be developed at the same time. This now appears unlikely, and the condition could be reworded to indicate it is the developer's financial responsibility to pay for one-half of the center median. He noted that construction of a portion of this median may be deferred until phase II of the development. With respect to lighting, Mr. Lippitt pointed out that condition 9 requires street lights in Telegraph Canyon Road to be placed in the center median. If this median is not constructed in the portion adjacent to phase II there would be no lights in the vicinity of the driveway through that area and it may be necessary to install some lighting in that portion of the property. Concerning the sidewalk width as referred to in condition 10, Mr. Lippitt noted that the city standard requires 5½ feet width and he felt this should not be reduced. With regard to the box culvert under Crest Drive as stipulated in condition 11, Mr. Lippitt pointed out that all street improvements along Telegraph Canyon Road and Crest Drive adjacent to this site are required with phase I of the development. These improvements cannot be installed without relocating the drainage channel so it is necessary to install the entire box culvert as part of phase I. Concerning the waiving of the right to protest an Assessment District and/or Reimbursement District as required in Condition 14, Mr. Lippitt advised that the boundaries of such districts have not been established, and while the applicant would waive the right to protest the formation of the district, he would retain the right to protest the amount of assessment if he felt it was unfair. If a reimbursement district is established this developer could be reimbursed for a portion of the improvements he installs. Bob Vermilya, 588 Douglas Street, asked what development will be south of Telegraph Canyon Road. He was advised this is zoned for multiple family use at 17 units per acre. Commissioner Renneisen suggested that the conditions be discussed and action taken on the controversial conditions prior to voting on the entire project. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen that condition 5 be amended to read, "The center line of the driveway to Crest Drive shall be located subject to the approval of the Public Works Director," rather than stipulating 200 feet north~ he moved that condition 6a be amended to include the words, "or the equivalent," so it should read, "One half of a 14 foot wide raised center median including curb and gutter, or equivalen%!'~hat condition 9 be amended to require adequate lighting on the access drive that goes through phase II, subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer; that condition 12 be deleted, and the staff instructed to further research this item, and if it appears that it is a necessary item that it be reworded and researched and inserted when the plan goes before the City Council; that condition 14 be deleted; and that an additional condition be added to require that the developer install some kind of temporary landscaping, such as the blown-on grass on that graded portion of phase II which is not to be immediately developed, along with a temporary irrigation system which will serve to mitigate the dust problem that could result; and to further modify condition 5 to indicate that the driveway to Crest Drive be located in accordance with the developer's revised submission, which places it parallel to Telegraph Canyon Road near the drainage channel. -10- ~ August 24, 1977 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith. In discussion of the motion, Mr. Lippitt questioned the deletion of condition 14 and suggested that it be modified to state that the developer shall agree to be included in an assessment district or reimbursement district, if formed. Commissioner Renneisen amended his motion to include condition 14 modified in accordance wi th Mr. Lippitt's suggestion; Commissioner Smith concurred as the second. The motion for amendment of conditions 5, 6, 9, 12 and 14 carried unanimously. It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Chairman Chandler that condition ll be amended to require the construction of a total box culve~tunder Crest Drive with phase I development, and that the developer may enter into an agreement to be reimbursed for the eastern half of the culvert. The motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Commissioner Renneisen, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that condition 16 be amended to allow two freestandJ, ng signs as requested by the developer. The motion failed to pass by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Renneisen and Smith NOES: Commissioners R. Johnson and Chandler ABSENT: Commissioners G. Johnson and Pressutti MSUC (Smith - R.Johnson) The Planning Commission finds that mitigation measures have been incorporated into PCM-78-4 which will a~oid any direct significant environmental impact and that it is economically infeasible to mitigate the long term cumulative impacts associated with this project, and further that the problem of noise from the aircond~tioning units w~ll be incorporated into the review of the precise plan by the staff. MSUC (Smith-Renneisen) The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the precise plan, PCM-78-4, for Phase I of the commercial shopping center on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest and Crest Drive subject to the conditions listed in the staff report as modified by the motions passed earlier in this meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Peterson noted that the next Commission meeting would be three weeks from this date, on September 14. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Smith reported that he is on a task force committee for water conservation to which he was appointed by the City Manager. One of the things of considerable importance is the use of water for landscaping. He suggested that the Planning staff review the Landscape Manual to determine if maximum use of drought resistant plants is addressed, and if not, amend the manual to include drought resistant plants which minimize the use of water. He pointed out that most data indicates the shortage of water will go on for a number of years. Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that the Planning Department currently -11- _. August 24, 1977 follows that practice, The City Landscape Architect has been reviewing all plans with an eye toward using drought resistant plants and also to utilizing temporary irrigation only wherever possible. He pointed out there is a definite shortage of native plant materials at this time due to the high demand and it may be some- time before the nurseries have an adequate stock of such plants. Chairman Chandler reported that he had noted in the Chula Vista paper the death of former Planning Commissioner Kyle Stewart's wife; al so the death of Katherine Moore who was formerly a regular attendant and very interested citizen at Planning Commission and City Council meetings. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Respectful ly submitted, -"Helen M~es, Secretary